Three Big Ideas Transforming Scholarly Communication...

Three Big IdeasThree Big IdeasTransforming Scholarly Communication Transforming Scholarly Communication **

* (* (Formerly known as Formerly known as ““Scholarly PublishingScholarly Publishing””))

A BRIEF HISTORYA BRIEF HISTORYof theof the BIG IDEABIG IDEA ofof

Taxpayer AccessTaxpayer Access

* distinction coined by AAAS, Technology and Policy Forum, May 2003

Debra R. Lappin JDSenior Advisor

Public Health and Science Policy Consulting

A BRIEF HISTORY ofA BRIEF HISTORY ofthethe BIG IDEABIG IDEA of Taxpayer Accessof Taxpayer Access

I. The beginnings of a big IDEA.(“ . . . Follow the Money.”)

II. How an IDEA takes hold.( Context + Coalition + Convergence Political Conviction)

III. Where this big IDEA is taking us.(Strange Bedfellows

produce “taxpayer-access progeny”)

““It is now possible to share the results ofIt is now possible to share the results of

medical research with anyone, anywhere, whomedical research with anyone, anywhere, who

could benefit from it.could benefit from it.

How could we not do it?How could we not do it?””

- Harold Varmus, PLoS Co-founder- Harold Varmus, PLoS Co-founder


(it begins (it begins with awith a little but very boldlittle but very bold IDEAIDEA))


WHAT? WHO? WHY…? The Idea takes shape.

June2002EllenRochedies –

Dec2002HHMI PLOS

Jan 2003NIH COPRREPORT TOZerhouni rePLOS:• Publicaccess…

•Transparency…• Levels theplaying field…;

• Is consistentwith NIH missionwith regard tothe disseminationof researchfindings that itfunds.”

Feb2003NIHDATASHARINGPOLICY --

TA

“Why”OA

“What”

PA

“Who”

PLOS/SABOBILL

June2003

HOUSEreport

JULY 03

AUG 032002

The Public Access to Science Act - June 24, 2003

Where the bill went wrong:• Excluded copyright protection for works resulting from research funded by the Federal Government

Where the bill got it right:(Issues raised for the first time? Entitlement to Access and KnowledgeDissemination as a Federal purpose.)

Government funds research to improve lives and welfare• 45 B to fund scientific and medical research (R&D Budget)• Internet makes access possible• “US Government funded research belongs to, and should befreely available to, every person in the US.”

Sense of Congress ( “ … any… department or agency … should make every effortto develop and support mechanisms for making the published results of the research …freely and easily available to the scientific community, the privatesector, physicians, and the public.”

The SABO Bill

““Why is it, a growing number of people are asking,Why is it, a growing number of people are asking,

that anyone can download medical nonsense from thethat anyone can download medical nonsense from the

Web for free, Web for free, but citizens must pay to see the resultsbut citizens must pay to see the results

of carefully conducted biomedical research that wasof carefully conducted biomedical research that was

financed by the taxesfinanced by the taxes. The Public Library of Sciences. The Public Library of Sciences

aims to change that.aims to change that.””

- Rick Weiss, - Rick Weiss, Washington PostWashington Post, 5 August 2003, 5 August 2003

The Media helps to defineThe Media helps to definethe the BIG IDEABIG IDEA

of Taxpayer Accessof Taxpayer AccessNY TIMES “Open Access to Scientific Research”August 07, 03 “ … Most of us admittedly, will not have much use

for free access to new discoveries in, say, particle physics. But itis a different matter when it comes to medical research. Popularnostrums abound on the Web, but it can be very hard if notimpossible, to find the results of properly vetted, taxpayerfinanced science – and in some cases it can be hard for yourdoctor to find them too. … The publishers of scientific journals arenaturally skeptical, but the real test will come in the market placeof ideas.”

BOSTON GLOBE –Scientists Seek Open Access to Medical Research

Scientific American – “Public Not Welcome,” Sept 8, 03

Washington FAX – AAU and FASEB speak out against SABO – wouldimpair copyright protections, deny publishers income.

But who thought Congress (Let alone, the Historical NIHBut who thought Congress (Let alone, the Historical NIH‘‘WatchdogWatchdog’’) was watching) was watching…….and thinking?.and thinking?

JULY 2003 House Language – Thank you Libraries!

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE

Restrictions on access to research data.

• Committee is concerned -- significant change in the availability ofresearch data … dramatic rise in medical research data

subscription costs.

• NLM is encouraged to examine how the consolidation of for-profit biomedical research publishers ….. has restrictedaccess to vital research information to not-for-profit libraries.

(Knowledge Dissemination)

• ..Report by March 1, 2004, about potential remedies to ensurethat taxpayer-funded research remains in the public

domain…(Entitlement to access)

Rep. Istook (R-OK)


* may be first use of phrase?

“ ….. Follow the Money … . ““As long as this isjust seen as somelittle eruptionamong scientistsand their journals,people won’t paymuch attention.”

“ . . . If patient advocacygroups really get involved andthey hammer the‘taxpayer-access totaxpayer-fundedresearch’ (*) point home,(federal agencies) will have tobe ready to deal with this as anissue. “

“ It seems a basic principlethat the public should benefitfrom publicly-fundedresearch… These latestdevelopments, the Sabo billand the AppropriationsReport language on ensuringthat ‘…taxpayer-funded researchremains in the publicdomain…,’ present animportant opportunity for(federal agencies) to take aclear position.”


I. When/how did this big idea came to be. (Deep Throat and Follow the Money.)

III. Where this big idea is taking us.(Strange Bedfellowsproduce “taxpayer-access progeny”)

II. How an IDEA takes hold.(Context + Convergence + Coalition

= Political Conviction)

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION

20032003 Context Context Convergence Convergence Coalition Coalition Political Political

ConvictionConviction

Market Forces

Societal BenefitsNew Conservative

Ideologies Doubling NIH $$

The INTERNET

The Changing Public

Aug 2003Aug 2003forms OAWGforms OAWG

20032003Context + Convergence = Political ConvictionContext + Convergence = Political Conviction

The Changing Public

Common Themes and NEW DEMANDS

Evidence-based Data driven Accountability Collaboration Team Inter-disciplinary Transparent Informed Trust Earned Trust Sustainability

•Clinical Trials•Negative Trial

Results•Adverse Events

as Proprietary Information

Opportunities: New Models born of the Web: *•Digital publishing technologies•Ubiquitous Network•Low marginal cost of dissemination•Recognized increased citation and impact

Problems•Serials Crisis – upward spiraling of journal cost•Bundling and the Big Deal•Ceding of IP rights by Authors•Societies rising up in protection of status quo•Poor correlation of publisher economic benefits with valuecontribution

Market Forces

AAwakening the Sleeping Giantwakening the Sleeping Giant

Credit Suisse First Boston:Credit Suisse First Boston:

““[We] would expect governments (and taxpayers)[We] would expect governments (and taxpayers)to examine the fact that they are essentiallyto examine the fact that they are essentiallyfunding the same purchase three times:funding the same purchase three times:

governments and taxpayers fund most academic research, pay the salariesgovernments and taxpayers fund most academic research, pay the salariesof the academics who undertake the peer review process and fund theof the academics who undertake the peer review process and fund thelibraries that buy the output, without receiving a penny in exchange fromlibraries that buy the output, without receiving a penny in exchange fromthe publishers for producing and reviewing the content....the publishers for producing and reviewing the content....

““We do not see this as sustainableWe do not see this as sustainable in the long term, in the long term,given pressure on university and government budgets.given pressure on university and government budgets.””

––Sector Review: Scientific, Technical and Medical PublishingSector Review: Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishing,, April 6, 2004 April 6, 2004

Market Forces

iTunesThe INTERNET

and the empowered consumer

Societal Benefits“TA themes take shape”

Taxpayers paid for the research (several times) ergo they are entitled tounrestricted access.

Taxpayers = ALL taxpayers, that is all who could use this knowledge intheir work and lives.

Taxpayer access is about NIH’s federal purposes. Widespread dissemination is an essential component of our society’s investment in research.

Taxpayers have an interest in seeing research applied by millions,with innovation spurred and translation accelerated.

Taxpayer access serves new conservative ideologies:Compact with America, government efficiency, consumer/patientempowerment, “ownership society.”

Taxpayer access highlights “NEW TENSION” protect establishedcommercial “monopolies”? OR Maximize the ROI on our nation’sscientific enterprise?

New Conservative Ideologies

Doubling theNIH Budget

Context + Convergence + Coalition= Political Conviction JUNE 2004 JUNE 2004

FY 05 Final report language FY 05 Final report language

Committee is concerned Committee is concerned ……. . insufficient public access toinsufficient public access toreports and data resulting from NIH-funded researchreports and data resulting from NIH-funded research..

…… contrary to the best interests of the U.S. taxpayers whocontrary to the best interests of the U.S. taxpayers whopaid for this research.paid for this research.””

““The Committee is aware of a proposal The Committee is aware of a proposal ……..

The Committee supports this proposal and The Committee supports this proposal and recommendsrecommends that thatNIH develop a policy, to apply from FY 2005 forward,NIH develop a policy, to apply from FY 2005 forward,requiring requiring that a complete electronic copy of anythat a complete electronic copy of anymanuscript reporting work supported by NIH grants ormanuscript reporting work supported by NIH grants orcontracts be provided to PMCcontracts be provided to PMC……..

Rep. Istook (R-OK) Rep. Regula

(R-OH)

TheThe Big IDEA Big IDEA finds a homefinds a homeSeptember 2004September 2004ATA is foundedATA is founded

NIH announces its draftNIH announces its draftpolicy for public comment policy for public comment ––……. and comes very close. and comes very close

September 2004 --September 2004 --

••REQUESTS -- does not REQUIREREQUESTS -- does not REQUIRE

••The manuscripts would be archived inThe manuscripts would be archived inPubMed Central (PMC).PubMed Central (PMC).

••Posting in PMC Posting in PMC six months after thesix months after thepublisherpublisher’’s date of final publications date of final publication (or (orsooner if the publisher agrees).sooner if the publisher agrees).

••Submission considered in context ofSubmission considered in context ofgrant compliancegrant compliance

NIH Zerhouni March 24, 2005

NIH DRAFT

REQUESTED but did

REQUESTED but did

not require

not require

SIX MONTHSSIX MONTHS

GRANT COMPLIANCEGRANT COMPLIANCE

NIH announces its Final Public Access Policy NIH announces its Final Public Access Policy ––…… Hits a Hits a bulls eyebulls eye with the goals with the goals…… Misses the markMisses the mark with the strategy with the strategy

Goals:Goals:1. Archive1. Archive2. Advancement of Science2. Advancement of Science3. Access3. Access

FindingsFindings Public Uses: 93 mm Americans search for Public Uses: 93 mm Americans search forhealth findings; 58 % take to Dr.health findings; 58 % take to Dr. Federal Purpose Federal Purpose

Strategies:Strategies:••1. 1. VoluntaryVoluntary submissions.submissions.••2. 2. Flexibility to specify the timingFlexibility to specify the timing••3. 3. Encourages postingEncourages posting …… ASAP ASAP and withinand within

12 months12 months ……

NIH POLICY

•NIH Policy

to make

research

results

public

•60-65,0

00 artic

les

•$30mm pai

d annual

ly in

direct p

ublicati

on costs

GOALS

BUT will scientists bother?BUT will scientists bother?How many have seen NIHHow many have seen NIH’’s Samples Sample

Author Language?Author Language?

Authors or institutions mayAuthors or institutions mayconsider adding theconsider adding thefollowing language to afollowing language to acopyright agreement:copyright agreement:

““Journal acknowledgesJournal acknowledgesthat Author retains thethat Author retains theright to provide a copy ofright to provide a copy ofthe final manuscript tothe final manuscript toNIH upon NIH upon acceptanceacceptancefor Journal publication orfor Journal publication orthereafter, for publicthereafter, for publicarchiving in PubMed Centralarchiving in PubMed Centralas soon as possible afteras soon as possible afterpublication by Journal.publication by Journal.””

NIH Zerhouni March 24, 2005

Author’s Addendum

OR….

“We trust our scientists. We believe they will do whatis right for the public who funds them.”

E Zerhouni, “Public Access to NIH-Funded Research;R Steinbrook, NEJM, 352;17 April 28, 2005

“Radiology grants the authorspermission to provide a copy ofthe accepted manuscript to NIHon acceptance for publication,and encourages authors tospecify public release in PubMedCentral twelve months afterpublication in the print issue ofthe Journal. . . . RSNA iswilling to provide an electroniccopy of accepted manuscripts toPubMed Central, if the authorsspecify the 12-month releasedate; however, NIH has notyet decided if it will allow“third-party submissions.”

“The NIH policy is a request;it is NOT a requirement. It isa policy, not a rule, andbecause NIH does not own theintellectual property of itsgrantees, it cannot forcecompliance. AACR authors willbe required to stipulate thattheir article can be madepublic on PubMed Central 1year after journal publication,but not sooner. “

But will But will ‘‘trusttrust’’ be sufficient? be sufficient?

JUNE 2005 --JUNE 2005 --House Sub-Committee Report LanguageHouse Sub-Committee Report Language

The C ommittee is pleased… theC ommittee endorses NIH'sexpressed goals for the policy …T he Committee is concerned,however, that the final policy maynot achieve these goals.

The Committee directs … by March1, 2006 … a comprehensive reporton the progress achiev ed during the firsteight months follow ing the implementationof the new policy .

1) the total number of applicablepeer-rev iewed articlesdeposited…

2) the embargo periodrequested by the author foreach deposited work; and

3) NIH's best estimate of the totalnumber of applicable peer-rev iewed articles availablefor deposit during this timeframe, together w ith anexplanation of the mechanismsrelied upon to determine thisestimate.

Education and O utreach.

* “THE RICK JOHNSON”Director of SPARC on behalf of ATA

May 12, 2005

Dr. Elias A. ZerhouniDirectorNational Institutes of Health1 Center Drive, MSC 0148 (Room 126)Bethesda, MD 20892-0148

Re: NIH Public Access Policy

Dear Dr. Zerhouni:

The Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA) believes that if NIH is toachieve the commendable goals of its Public Access Policy broad

partic ipation by NIH-funded researchers is essential. In order tofollow and understand the progress being achieved, the stakeholderswould all benefit if the NIH could post the following data to the PubMedCentral web site at regular intervals:

February 3, 2005

The Honorable Michael LeavittSecretary of Health and Human ServicesHubert H. Humphrey Building200 Independence Avenue SWRoom 615FWashington, DC 20201

Dear Secretary Leavitt:

The Alliance for Taxpayer Access is a coalition of taxpayers,patients, physicians, researchers, and institutions that haveplayed a leading role in the national debate regarding timely andunfettered public access to federally funded biomedical research.We are writing today to share our views on the just-releasedNational Institutes of Health (NIH) Enhanced Public Access Policy.

““The ProofThe Proofis inis in

the Puddingthe Pudding……....””**

“For example, we plan toprovide monthly totals ofmanuscript submissions.”

Questionssubmittedby SenatorHarkin

QuestionsSubmittedbySenatorDurbin


I. When/how did this big idea come to be?

II.Where is this big idea today?

III. Where is this big idea taking us?(Strange Bedfellows produce “taxpayer-access progeny”)

The promise of PubMed Central as a key entreeThe promise of PubMed Central as a key entreeto other NIH databases to other NIH databases …… one-stop shoppingone-stop shopping……

NIH Compared to Other dot Gov DomainsUnited States Audience

April – Sept 2002

People come to NIH, People TRUST NIH Information,People USE NIH resources

300,000

200,000

100,000

400,000

January 1998 January 1999 January 2000 January 2001 January 2002 January 2003 January 2004

500,000

600,000

January 2005

Unique NCBI Users Per Day Unique NCBI Users Per Day –– where do we see where do we seeUSAGE like this?USAGE like this?

(OKAY, maybe Google (OKAY, maybe Google……))

daily IP addresses 500,000daily users ~1.5 Milliondaily hits 75 Milliondaily pageviews 24 Milliondaily bytes 2.2 Terabytes

PubChem as the portal toPubChem as the portal tothe promise of thethe promise of the

Molecular Libraries InitiativeMolecular Libraries Initiative

Molecular LibrariesScreening Centers

Network (MLSCN)

Compound Repository(MLSMR)

Instrumentation

ChemicalDiversity

AssayDevelopmen

t

PredictiveADMET

Technology Development

Screening Informatics

CheminformaticsResearch Centers

Is the overlap the issue?Is the overlap the issue? What is the proper role of government in the What is the proper role of government in the

execution of its federal purposes?execution of its federal purposes?

…… is Minimal is Minimal

PubChem PubChem ––FY 06 House Sub-Committee LanguageFY 06 House Sub-Committee Language

Committee understands• stated mission of the PubChem database• new and comprehensive database of chemicalstructures and their biological activities,• will house both compound information from thescientific literature as well as screening and probe datafrom the new NIH molecular libraries screening centernetwork.

Committee is concerned that NIH is replicating scientificinformation services that already exist in the privatesector.

Committee urges NIH to work with private sector providersto avoid unnecessary duplication and competition

AS A AS A BIG IDEABIG IDEA gets gets BIGGERBIGGER..the taxpayer access progenythe taxpayer access progeny

challenges us to ask new questionschallenges us to ask new questions

How do we define the new science commons as afundamental underpinning of TA?

How are our notions of inherently commercial andinherently governmental changing?

When should/must government provide a key tool to enablean accelerated return on the taxpayer’s investment inscientific research . . . EVEN IF this enabling toolencroaches upon what was previously assumed to be “commercialturf”?

What information should NIH -- as a function of itsfederal purpose -- keep in “pre-competitive” status?

Who owns facts?

FEDERAL PURPOSES

AS A AS A BIG IDEABIG IDEA gets gets BIGGERBIGGER..the taxpayer access progenythe taxpayer access progeny

challenges us to ask new questionschallenges us to ask new questions

How long do we protect the status quo if the status quo isthe buggy whip?

When is aggregation and size an effective economic modelbecause the significance of the required capital investment,and when does broad and equal access through newtechnologies make protection of the GIANTS no longer aconservative commercial value?

When in the MAXIMUM return on the investment of ourtaxpayer dollar fundamentally tied to the speed ofinformation dissemination to the maximum audience possible?

Strange Congressional BedfellowsStrange Congressional Bedfellowscontinue to knock at the door ofcontinue to knock at the door of

taxpayer accesstaxpayer access2005

CURES Legislation -- Cochran/LeibermanFocus on accelerated research translationwith public access provision

John CORNYNFocus on public access across science

agencies

Frank WOLFFocus on tripling the innovation budget

Taxpayer Access

2005 2005Strange Policy BedfellowsStrange Policy Bedfellowsfind common interestsfind common interests

HHMI WellcomeTrust

Newt GingrichAmerican Enterprise

Institute

Chamber of CommerceInformation Technology

Industries

Open Society InstitutePublic KnowledgeGeorge Soros

RWJFMarkle Foundation

Carnegie FoundationPew Internet & American

Life Project???

PLOSVarmus

Moore Foundation

ARLSPARCATA

BudapestOAI

UK MRC

Berlin

Bethesda

The Ownership SocietyThe CATO Institute?

Information Technology Industries

REVOLUTION – Steve Jobs

“I came across a colleague searching the grassin a circle of light under a street lamp.

‘What are you looking for?’ I asked.‘Keys,’ he answered, at which pointI started to help him.

After a while it becameapparent we were notfinding any keys, so I asked,

‘Are you sure they’re here?’ to which he replied,

‘Oh no, they’re not here,they’re out theresomeplace, gesturing offinto the darkness, ‘but the light’s betterhere!’”

Norman C. Heglund,Science Vol 303 1-02-04

Taxpayer Access turns a spotlight into a floodlight.

“We end up teaching studentswhat we have access to, ratherthan what our students mostneed to know.” Gary Ward,University of Vermont.

Taxpayer Access and the new health information consumerTaxpayer Access and the new health information consumer……. Why this is a . Why this is a BIG IDEABIG IDEA that will not be defeated. that will not be defeated.

PEW/INTERNETPEW INTERNET & AMERICAN LIFE PROJECT

______________________________Health Information Online

______________________________

Eight in ten internet users have looked

forHealth information online, with

increased interest in diet, fitness, drugs,

healthInsurance, experimental treatments, and

particular doctors and hospitals

Embargoed until 4pm Eastern on May 17, 2005

_____________________________

Susanna Fox, A ssociate Director

PEW INTERNET & AMERICAN LIFE PROJECT 1615 St L St. NW-Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036

______________________________202- 415-4500 http://www.pweinternet.org/

““It is now possible to share the results ofIt is now possible to share the results of

medical research with anyone, anywhere, whomedical research with anyone, anywhere, who

could benefit from it. could benefit from it. How could we not doHow could we not do

it?it?”” Harold Varmus, PLoS Co-founderHarold Varmus, PLoS Co-founder

Taxpayer accessTaxpayer accessAA BIG IDEABIG IDEA

built on a simple notionbuilt on a simple notionthat will only continue to grow.that will only continue to grow.

Three Big Ideas Transforming Scholarly Communication...

Documents

Transcript of Three Big Ideas Transforming Scholarly Communication...